from the watch-your-mouths,-plebes dept

The Blue Lives Matter movement has traveled overseas. Here in the US, we've seen various attempts to criminalize sassing cops, although none of those appear to be working quite as well as those already protected by a raft of extra rights would like. Meanwhile, we had Spain lining itself up for police statesmanship by making it a criminal offense to disrespect police officers.

Hong Kong’s police commissioner said he would support a law to make insulting officers on duty a crime on Tuesday, in what appeared to be a move to placate the city’s police union.

Stephen Lo Wai-chung said an increasing number of disputes in the city was a reason a law was needed – an apparent reversal from his stance a year ago.

“Over the past few years, our officers have been carrying out duties in a society that full of disputes. They caught in the middle in many circumstances. They were insulted in certain extents at work with their jobs sometimes disrupted,” Lo told reporters as he announced last year’s crime statistics, adding that the force had overcome “several big challenges” in recent years.

Disrupting officers is already a criminal offense. It's the sort of thing that's illegal everywhere. But disruption of official duties needs to be far more than derogatory remarks. If insults hurled at officers are preventing them from doing their jobs, the police chief doesn't need new legislation. He needs new officers.

This change in stance can be traced back to Hong Kong's largest police union. The Junior Police Officers Association, which represents two-thirds of Hong Kong's police force, thinks officers need to be better protected from certain arrangements of letters.

from the this-is-pretty-fucked-up dept

Last year, there was a series of very troubling rulings by a district court in a case related to the criminal prosecution of Kim Dotcom. This wasn't, technically, part of the actual criminal case against him, but rather a separate effort by the government to steal his money. We've been covering the ridiculous process of civil asset forfeiture for a while, and it's really problematic in general. In Dotcom's case, it's something of a farce. Remember, civil asset forfeiture is the situation where the US government effectively files a civil (not criminal) lawsuit against inanimate objects, rather than people. In this case, it basically filed a lawsuit against all of Kim Dotcom's money, arguing that it was the proceeds of a crime and therefore, the government should just get it all. Again, this is entirely separate from the actual criminal trial of Kim Dotcom, which has been put on hold while the extradition battle plays out in New Zealand (determining if Dotcom can be forcibly sent to the US to stand trial).

Just the whole process of civil asset forfeiture is troublesome enough. As we've detailed over and over again, it's basically a system whereby law enforcement gets to steal money and other stuff (cars are popular) from people, simply by claiming that they were used in a criminal endeavor. Since the lawsuit is against the stuff, if people want it back, they have to go and make a claim on it, and it's a fairly convoluted process. In this case, things were even more ridiculous, because the government argued that because Dotcom was resisting extradition from New Zealand, he could be declared "a fugitive" and the judge overseeing the case (the same one overseeing his criminal case, Judge Liam O'Grady) agreed. That effectively meant that Dotcom had no legal right to protest the government simply taking and keeping all of his assets -- and they moved forward and did exactly that.

It is difficult to see how this can be legitimately described as anything but theft by the US government. It got someone locked up in New Zealand, based on questionable legal theories, and while he was (quite reasonably) fighting extradition to the US (a place he's never visited and where he has no business ties), it initiated a separate legal process to keep all his money, no matter what happens in his extradition fight and criminal trial. On top of that, it effectively barred him from making an official claim on that money by having him declared a fugitive for exercising his legal due process rights to fight extradition. So while he exercises his legal due process rights in New Zealand, he's blocked from doing so in the US. And all of his money goes to the US government.

As we said after O'Grady's ruling came out, even if you think that Dotcom is guilty of a criminal copyright conspiracy, and even if you think he should be extradited, tried and locked up this should concern you. Let him go through the full legal process, with all that due process entails, and then determine what should happen to his assets. To take them before that's happened, through this questionable side process is immensely problematic.

And that's why Dotcom appealed, and many others -- including a bunch of criminal defense lawyers -- stepped in to argue this was crazy. Unfortunately, earlier today, the 4th Circuit Appeals Court upheld O'Grady's ruling and rubber stamped the DOJ's legalized theft of Dotcom's assets. You should read the 61 page opinion (which was a 2 to 1 decision, with an interesting dissent), but we'll hit on some of the low points here.

There were a number of different arguments raised -- with a big one not just being the basic due process question, but a jurisdiction question. Dotcom's assets are not in the US. His work was not in the US. So why does the US get to seize the money. The majority opinion basically says "because that's what Congress wanted -- it created this law to let the US government seize overseas assets." The opinion admits that there's a bit of a circuit split on this, but goes for it anyway.

When the amendments were introduced in the Money Laundering Improvements Act, Senator D’Amato included an explanatory statement indicating that subsection (b) was intended to provide the federal district courts with jurisdiction over foreign property:

Subsection (b)(2) addresses a problem that arises whenever property subject to forfeiture under the laws of the United States is located in a foreign country. As mentioned, under current law, it is probably no longer necessary to base in rem jurisdiction on the location of the property if there have been sufficient contacts with the district in which the suit is filed. See United States v. $10,000 in U.S. Currency[, 860 F.2d 1511 (9th Cir. 1988)]. No statute, however, says this, and the issue has to be repeatedly litigated whenever a foreign government is willing to give effect to a forfeiture order issued by a United States court and turn over seized property to the United States if only the United States is able to obtain such an order.

Subsection (b)(2) resolves this problem by providing for jurisdiction over such property in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, in the district court for the district in which any of the acts giving rise to the forfeiture occurred, or in any other district where venue would be appropriate under a venue-for-forfeiture statute.

This is the point that the dissent disagrees on, and argues that the forfeiture should be blocked on jurisdictional questions alone. The key, according to Judge Henry Floyd, is that court decisions must be binding on parties, and not advisory. But that doesn't work when you're talking about an opinion concerning assets overseas, which will still then depend on the local government where those assets live to abide by the ruling.

The majority side-steps this concern by cabining it to the separation of powers context. One of the basic tenets of what constitutes a “case or controversy” cannot be elided so. The defendant in this action--the res--is outside of the United States and beyond the control of the district court. Absent control, no order of the district court can be binding on the res because the fate of the res is ultimately not in the hands of the district court. Instead, the res in this case is subject to the control of the courts of New Zealand and Hong Kong. The district court’s forfeiture order therefore merely advises the courts of a foreign sovereign that (in the district court’s view under the laws of the United States) the United States should have title to the res. Those courts, of course, with control of the res and with the authority vested in them by their own sovereigns, remain free to revise, overturn, or refuse recognition to the judgment of the district court.

As Judge Floyd notes, this makes the opinion nothing more than an advisory opinion, which is prohibited by Article III of the Constitution (concerning the powers of the judiciary).

Back to the majority opinion, the court rejects the argument that this process to steal Dotcom's money without letting him defend himself violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. First, the court says that because some of Megaupload's servers were based in Virginia, the jurisdiction is fine. Then, the court accepts the lower court's decision that Dotcom can be called a "fugitive" even as he's both in contact with the court and going through a perfectly legal process around extradition in New Zealand. Somewhat incredibly, the court decides that because he's resisting extradition, that's the same thing as being a fugitive hiding out. That... should be troubling for a whole variety of reasons. Basically, the court says that due process means that Dotcom has the right to be heard protesting the forfeiture, but that the only way to do that is to stop fighting extradition. It gets down in the weeds parsing the law in determining what the right standard is for determining if fighting extradition counts as being a fugitive, and decides that this was Congress' intent with the law -- that so long as the person is avoiding court, even if for reasons relating to the legality of extradition, they can still be declared a fugitive.

The claimants’ argument that they have legitimate reasons to remain where they are, such as jobs, businesses, and families does not disprove that avoiding prosecution is the reason they refuse to come to the United States.

I imagine that Dotcom's lawyers will now try to fight this as well -- seeking either an en banc rehearing or petition the Supreme Court to hear the case. Both are pretty risky, with a fairly high probability of being rejected. And, of course, as the dissent pointed out, there's still one other hurdle for the DOJ: the assets are held in Hong Kong and New Zealand, and they now need to convince authorities in those two places to hand over the money. And, as of right now, it's not clear if they'll actually let it happen.

Again, no matter what you think of Dotcom's actual criminal case, this result should be concerning to you. The use and abuse of civil asset forfeiture is the real issue here -- not the copyright questions. The ability of the US government to simply take millions of dollars based on accusations and without a guilty verdict in a trial should be tremendously worrying. If a full trial happened and he was found guilty, then there's a reasonable argument that, as a result of that, the money can be forfeited. But it's extremely problematic that the money can be forfeited in these circumstances, before the rest of the legal process has occurred. Under this ruling, even if Dotcom came to the US and was found not guilty, the US government would still keep all his stuff. Can anyone explain how that would be a fair and just result?

from the where's-the-line dept

Another day, another case of Facebook disappearing a video that it should have left up. A politician in Hong Kong says that Facebook banned him from the site for 24 hours for a "terms of service violation" after he posted a video of him confronting men who had been following him around for weeks.

The video uploaded by Leung on August 7 showed him approaching a black car which he claimed followed him for a month. When Leung asked the two men inside the car where they came from, they replied “grandpa” – a slang term used for the Chinese Communist Party.

“I don’t want to know about you. Someone wants to know about you – I don’t want to know,” said one of the men in the car.

That seems like a valuable and important video in the public interest. But Facebook didn't think so:

Leung was informed on Tuesday night that his original video was removed for not complying with Facebook’s community standards. Shortly after, he uploaded it again and was banned from posting for 24 hours after the new post also got reported

Of course, once the story started getting press attention, suddenly Facebook restored the video. Funny how that works.

Either way, though, it's yet another reminder of how much power some of these platforms have over important speech, and how they become centralized attack vectors for those who wish to hide such information.

from the heads-you-win,-tails-I-lose dept

Back in 2012, we wrote about Philip Morris using corporate sovereignty provisions in trade agreements to sue Australia and Uruguay over their attempts to reduce the number of deaths from smoking through plain packaging and other health measures. Since then, the case has become a textbook example of all that is wrong with investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS).

For example, even though Philip Morris lost its battle in the Australian High Court to stop the introduction of plain packaging, it did not simply accept the ruling, but sought to use ISDS to nullify the court's decision. The natural instrument would be the trade agreement between the US and Australia, but the Australian government had wisely refused to accept a corporate sovereignty chapter there. So Philip Morris used an obscure 1993 trade agreement between Australia and Hong Kong, which did have ISDS, claiming that its business activities in the latter territory gave it the right to invoke the treaty -- a classic example of "treaty shopping".

Since those events from a few years back, we've heard nothing about how the Philip Morris ISDS case is proceeding -- until now, since The West Australian newspaper has discovered the following fact:

More than [AU]$50 million [about US$35 million] of taxpayer money is expected to go up in smoke defending cigarette plain packaging in a secretive international tribunal in Singapore.

But costs will pile much higher if Australia loses on its first defence that Philip Morris indulged in cynical "venue shopping" by shifting its headquarters to Hong Kong to sue Australia.

Philip Morris Asia is arguing that Australia's tobacco plain packaging measure constitutes an expropriation of its Australian investments in breach of Article 6 of the Hong Kong Agreement. Philip Morris Asia further argues that Australia's tobacco plain packaging measure is in breach of its commitment under Article 2(2) of the Hong Kong Agreement to accord fair and equitable treatment to Philip Morris Asia's investments. Philip Morris Asia further asserts that tobacco plain packaging constitutes an unreasonable and discriminatory measure and that Philip Morris Asia's investments have been deprived of full protection and security in breach of Article 2(2) of the Hong Kong Agreement.

The information obtained by The West Australian is significant, because it reveals the scale of the costs that a government must contemplate when defending itself against a corporate sovereignty claim. Given that background, it's easy to see why governments in these cases may choose to settle quickly, and to give the companies what they want, rather than risk mounting costs and a huge fine.

It's that fact that gives the lie to the claim that ISDS cannot force a government to change its laws. While that's true in theory, in practice governments are very likely to choose capitulation as the cheaper and easier option, recognizing that the whole process is biased against them. After all, unlike companies, a government can never win an ISDS case: the best it can hope for is not to lose.

from the soz dept

Here on Techdirt, we often write about laws, particularly stupid ones. A new law that is being considered in Hong Kong, to encourage people to make apologies, seems to fit the description nicely. Here's the background, as given by the consultation paper seeking input on the idea (pdf):

In 2010, the Working Group on Mediation of the [Hong Kong] Department of Justice recommended, amongst other things, that the question whether there should be apology legislation dealing with the making of apologies for the purpose of enhancing settlement deserves fuller consideration by an appropriate body. In 2012, the Secretary for Justice established the Steering Committee on Mediation (“Steering Committee”) to further promote the development of mediation in Hong Kong. The Regulatory Framework Sub-committee set up under the Steering Committee has been tasked to consider whether there is a need to introduce apology legislation in Hong Kong. After reviewing the report prepared by the Regulatory Framework Sub-committee, the Steering Committee recommended the enactment of apology legislation in Hong Kong.

Here's why it's under consideration:

The main objective of the proposed apology legislation is to promote and encourage the making of apologies in order to facilitate the amicable settlement of disputes by clarifying the legal consequences of making an apology.

Apologizing after some mishap might be taken as a tacit admission of guilt, which could indeed have "legal consequences", since the fear is naturally that doing so will be used against the party making the apology. As a result, people often restrain their natural instinct to say sorry. The consultation documents points out that's likely to exacerbate the situation:

It is unfortunate that this is the perceived legal position as regards apologies, for the heat of the moment so commonly found in a dispute could have been extinguished (or at least reduced) by an apology or an expression of sympathy or regret, thus preventing the escalation of the dispute into legal action or making it more likely for the legal action to be settled.

Ironically, then, fear of the legal consequences of apologizing can mean that disputes are more likely to end up in court than they would had somebody quickly apologized. So apology legislation clarifying the legal effect of saying sorry makes a lot of sense, despite my erroneous initial thoughts. No wonder, then, as I learned from the consultation document, that similar laws are already found quite widely around the world -- in 57 jurisdictions to be precise. Moreover, it seems that the idea was first introduced in the US:

Our research indicates that the first apology legislation was enacted in Massachusetts in 1986. The trend then spread to other states in the United States. At present over 30 states in the United States have apology legislation. Characteristics of the legislation vary. Some deem an apology not to be an admission of liability while others only limit the admissibility of an apology in court for certain purposes. It is noted that most of the apology legislation in the United States covers partial apology (i.e. apology that does not include an admission of fault) only and is targeted at civil actions against the health care profession or involving some other aspects of personal injuries only.

Clearly I owe the lawmakers of Hong Kong an apology for misjudging their eminently sensible legislative project.

from the frozen dept

In the continuing global legal fight over Megaupload, the company apparently is asking the Hong Kong high court to set aside the restraining order on the company's assets that was put in place over two years ago, following a request from the US Justice Department. Megaupload was always legally based in Hong Kong, even if the company itself was based in New Zealand. Megaupload appears to be claiming that the Hong Kong Justice Department did not properly follow the law in going along with the US DOJ's request. The main issue, which has been debated back in the US, is that, technically, the DOJ cannot serve Megaupload (the company) since it has no US employees or presence. The DOJ can go after foreign individuals, but when it comes to foreign companies, the law is pretty explicit that they can't. While the DOJ is actively seeking to change that law, it doesn't change the basic problem with the original request.

Megaupload is pointing out that the US DOJ's request to the HK DOJ depended on Megaupload being served the criminal summons. But since that hasn't been satisfied, it argues the HK DOJ has no basis for restraining Megaupload's assets:

The order was granted on the basis of an ex parte application by the HK DOJ made at the request of the US DOJ. The grounds for discharge of the order is the failure by the HK DOJ—acting on the basis of information provided by the US DOJ—to fully and frankly disclose in that ex parte application serious legal issues relating to the US DOJ’s inability to serve Megaupload with a criminal summons in accordance with United States federal law. Among other things, the US DOJ failed to explain how it intended to comply with the service of process requirements imposed by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which, as argued in Megaupload’s application, are an essential prerequisite to initiating any criminal proceedings against Megaupload and cannot be satisfied for a corporation that has no physical presence or subsidiaries in the United States. Megaupload has submitted those filings with its application to the High Court.

Megaupload claims it's seeking to free the assets in order to attempt to regain control over the leased servers from Carpathia, which the DOJ has been hoping would be destroyed (leading to the destruction of evidence in a criminal case, at the DOJ's urging). While the issue of serving Megaupload is something of a technical snafu, it's one in a rather long line of sloppy lawyering by the DOJ throughout this case.

Edward Snowden has left Hong Kong on his own accord for a third country through a lawful and normal channel, and Hong Kong has informed the US Government of his departure...

Since the documents provided by the US Government did not fully comply with legal requirements under Hong Kong law, the Hong Kong Government requested additional information so that the Department of Justice could consider whether the US Government's request met relevant legal conditions.

As the Hong Kong Government did not yet have sufficient information to process the request, there was no legal basis to restrict Mr Snowden from leaving Hong Kong.

It's a rarely seen event, but someone has just told the US government, "Your papers are not in order." That's a hell of a thing to wake up to, especially if you're one of the members of the "harmed" parties. (Supposedly Snowden's actions would harm all Americans from the way the anti-whistleblower contingent makes it sound, but really it's just the NSA and the FBI that have been caught with their particulars exposed.)

Hong Kong officials added one more paragraph to its statement, one which explains why Snowden was given a five-hour head start.

At the same time, it has formally written to the US Government requesting clarification on reports about the hacking of computer systems in Hong Kong by US government agencies. It will follow up on the matter, to protect the legal rights of people of Hong Kong.

In other words, Hong Kong finds the US government's actions more problematic than Snowden's actions, so have fun catching your boy!

Snowden's escape will be an embarrassment to those who publicly stated their confidence that Hong Kong would comply with the orders.

The White House appears to have been caught flat-footed by the latest manoeuvres. On Saturday, President Obama's national security adviser, Tom Donilon, told CBS news he expected Hong Kong to arrest Snowden because it "has been a historically good partner of the United States in law enforcement matters and we expect them to comply with the treaty in this case".

In fact, the US government is looking particularly hapless, what with its stern demands to Hong Kong before Snowden left, followed by similarly pathetic demands to Russia to not let Snowden hop a flight onto his next destination.

So, Snowden is on his way to Ecuador, seeking asylum in the same country that opened up its doors, heart and embassy Hide-a-bed to Julian Assange. His itinerary was hardly direct, but it made stops in nations unlikely to greet him at the airport with handcuffs and a seat on the next flight to the United States. Traveling to Russia and Cuba made it much less likely that someone would "officially" recognize the fact that the US government had revoked Snowden's passport prior to his boarding the flight to Russia. (Of all Snowden's worries, traveling with a revoked passport has to be so far down the list as to be imperceptible.)

He's left behind a wealth of information, all of which the US government would rather have kept secret. A trail of angry politicians and security officials also follow close behind, decrying his every move, including CISPA sponsor Mike Rogers.

"When you look at it, every one of these nations is hostile to the United States," Rogers said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

"If he could go to North Korea and Iran, he could round out his 'government oppression tour.' So when you think about what he says he wants and what his actions are, it defies logic."

I doubt Snowden sympathizes with oppressive governments, but he does know who's more likely to ignore US pleas, threats or attempted intervention. Considering what's happened to other whistleblowers, the US government looks a bit oppressive itself, at least from Snowden's viewpoint. Still, Rogers thinks Snowden should just come home and get what's coming to him.

"If he really believed he did something good, he should get on a plane, come back, and face the consequences of his actions," Rogers said.

His statement makes no sense. Rogers has already declared Snowden guilty as charged and seems to think Snowden should martyr himself for his cause via the No Good Deed Goes Unpunished Whistleblower Retribution Plan that George Bush and (especially) Barack Obama are so fond of. Whistleblowers like Snowden should "face the consequences" while the government's excesses and overreach should be allowed to continue on unpunished in perpetuity.

There is a potential downside to Snowden's actions. By seeking asylum in a country with a somewhat antagonistic relationship with the US, there's always the possibility that he'll be used as a pawn when politically convenient. Ecuador has already proven it has a rather flexible definition of "asylum," one which allows it to suddenly revoke "refugee" status if certain governments ask nicely. Given the right circumstances, his hosts could decide to offer his freedom in exchange for something it really wants, or to avoid something it doesn't.

from the and-off-we-go dept

This isn't a huge surprise, but the Washington Post is reporting that US federal prosecutors have filed a sealed criminal complaint against Edward Snowden charging him with espionage under the Espionage Act, along with theft and conversion of government property -- and have asked Hong Kong authorities to detain him. Just this morning, we were discussing the Obama administration's war on whistleblowers, prosecuting six different whistleblowers under the Espionage Act, twice the number of all other presidential administrations combined. Now we're up to number seven apparently. Update: The complaint has been unsealed (also embedded below).

Did Snowden break the law? Possibly -- but charging him with espionage is ridiculous, just as it has been ridiculous in many of these cases. Snowden wasn't doing this to "aid the enemy" but to alert the American public to the things that the administration itself had been publicly misleading to downright untruthful about. His actions have kicked off an important discussion and debate over surveillance society and how far it has gone today. That's not espionage. If he was doing espionage, he would have sold those secrets off to a foreign power and lived a nice life somewhere else. To charge him with espionage is insane.

In terms of process, the Washington Post explains:

By filing a criminal complaint, prosecutors have a legal basis to make the request of the authorities in Hong Kong. Prosecutors now have 60 days to file an indictment, probably also under seal, and can then move to have Snowden extradited from Hong Kong for trial in the United States.

Snowden, however, can fight the U.S. effort to have him extradited in the courts in Hong Kong. Any court battle is likely to reach Hong Kong's highest court and could last many months, lawyers in the United States and Hong Kong said.

It also notes that while the US and Hong Kong have an extradition treaty, there is an exception for "political offenses."

While this certainly was not unexpected, it's still a disappointing move from the administration. The crackdown on whistleblowers does not make the US look strong. It makes our government look weak, petty and vindictive in the face of actual transparency. It's shameful.

from the two-internets dept

Susan Crawford believes telecommunications in America are going through the biggest crisis ever, and this is just as bad as the banking crisis was. Monday, at the Freedom 2 Connect conference, the Internet law scholar and former Special Assistant for Science, Technology and Innovation Policy at the White House, laid out what's wrong with broadband in America, hinting and what needs to be done to fix it. It's not going to be easy.

"The stakes are extraordinarily high, this has been an incremental crisis for a long time but now it's an actual crisis," said Crawford, whose book analyzing these issues, Captive Audience, will be published in November. The central issue is the so-called digital divide and what Crawford refers to as the "looming cable monopoly." Due to deregulation, which was predicated on the premise that
the free market and competition would protect consumers, cable companies have found themselves with an inordinate amount of power to control the Internet and broadband access while, at the same time, traditional phone companies like AT&T are struggling to keep up and veering towards wireless services.

To support her thesis, Crawford presented some stunning numbers. In the last two years, Comcast market share has grown from 16.3 million subscribers to 18.5, a 14 percent growth. Time Warner Cable has grown 10 percent, from 9.2 to 10.7 million customers. Meanwhile, DSL subscribers have plummeted: AT&T and Verizon market share is down 22 and 21 percent respectively.

So, while it's good to be Comcast, it's not good to be an American citizen. Without competition, there's
no drive to improve the service. The average speed of an Internet connection in the United States is
around 5Mbit/s. An astoundingly low number if you look at other western countries. South Korea, for
example, has an average of 50Mbit/s. And faster connections are starting to be implemented around the
world. One gigabit connections are available in countries like Japan, Portugal or Sweden and at much
better prices than in the U.S. – in Hong Kong, connecting at one gigabit per second costs $26 a month
while in Chattanooga, TN, it costs $350.

What does this mean to the average citizen? It means the United States are giving up their leadership.
Crawrford said this means “the next Google won't come from America.” And, even within U.S.
borders, there's a fundamental problem: you either pay premium for a mediocre service or you are left
behind.

“We end up with two Internets, two societies in America,” Crawford said to me in an interview.

One America does some tweeting and Facebook on their inferior, slower wireless devices. The other
America not only gets to enjoy video online, but they can also apply for jobs, do video-conferencing,
get an education online and, ultimately, live in the 21st century. Crawford argues that this digital divide
ends up creating inequality between the haves and have-nots in America.

The only solution, Crawford argues, is for the government to intervene and regulate. Internet access, particularly high-speed access, should be treated “as a utility, just as electricity, gas and water.” Doing
so would make the Internet a natural monopoly in which the government would provide the pipe and
guarantee equal opportunity of access to everybody.

It might not happen immediately, but Crawford hopes that, with her influence and that of other thinkers
like her, this will come to the forefront of the public discussion. She believes that, eventually, in every
district, there will be elected officials who understand and care about these issues. That will be when
we'll be able to look for a solution. "We make this a voting issue, that's how we fight back."

from the let's-see-what-happens-now dept

Google obviously made a big splash earlier this year when it threatened to leave China in response to a hack attack. There's been a lot of back and forth, and some questions about whether or not Google would really leave. Just last week, China ratcheted up the rhetoric, warning Google not to stop censoring search results. Now Google has made its strategy a bit clearer, by saying that it's going to redirect all Google Chinese searches to the Hong Kong version of its search engine, which is not censored. And, now, it waits for China's response. Amusingly, Google has also set up a little dashboard that highlights what Google services China is currently blocking. The next big question, of course, is whether or not Google will also start looking for ways to help people get around the blocks...